Illinois Court of Appeals opinion affirming the conviction of a defendant who was required to register as a sex offender and violated a state law that prohibited registrants with offenses related to children from taking photographs of children.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court order reversing lower court finding that Pennsylvania’s SORA was punitive and could not be applied retroactively.
Illinois district court opinion finding that the Illinois’ Department of Corrections policy of prohibiting more than one registrant from residing at an address while on supervision to be unconstitutional under the 8th and 14th Amendments.
Federal district court opinion finding no constitutional violation with regard to Nebraska requiring juveniles adjudicated out of state and registered privately in their respective states to be placed on Nebraska’s public registry upon moving there.
North Carolina Supreme Court decision finding that a trial court order determining that a defendant was a “danger to the community” was not in error, and thus registration was required under state law, following his conviction for secret peeping.
8th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming a defendant’s liability for the full amount of a victim’s losses in a child pornography offense–regardless as to whether those losses were incurred prior to the defendant’s conduct–as well as a condition of supervised release prohibiting the possession of adult pornography.
Wyoming Supreme Court opinion holding that appellant was not eligible to petition for removal from state registry on the basis that he had not registered for 25 years under state law, fact that his conviction occurred 25 years ago notwithstanding.
8th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming Appellant’s conviction for failing to register under federal law, rejecting challenges that his state law conviction should not have required registration, and that the federal definition for which offenses require registration was void for vagueness.
1st Circuit Court of Appeals opinion holding that mandatory polygraphs imposed as a condition of treatment do not violate the Fifth Amendment so long as revocations do not arise solely from failing polygraphs or from invoking Fifth Amendment rights. Additionally, the Court held that Appellant’s suspension from treatment for violating terms of his release did not violate Due Process.
Kentucky Supreme Court holding that lifetime registration was required for Appellant who was convicted of multiple counts of distribution of illegal images.
8th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a variety of supervised release conditions on a defendant who was convicted of failing to register under federal law.
Federal trial court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania holding that Pennsylvania’s practice of treating people convicted of sex offenses differently than other individuals for the purposes of placement in halfway houses due to community concerns violated Equal Protection.
New York Appellate Division opinion holding that New York state legislature did not intend school grounds exclusion provisions of state sex offense law to apply to youthful offenders.
Federal trial court holding that application of Tennessee’s sex offense registration act violated the Ex Post Facto clause as applied to two plaintiffs.
New Jersey Supreme Court opinion holding that enhanced penalties for failure to register passed after an obligation to register arose do not implicate ex post facto provisions of state or federal constitutions.
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion vacating lifetime supervised release conditions relating to employment where there was no connection between employment and the offense of conviction, but upholding two other conditions related to internet use and presence restrictions.
Wisconsin Court of Appeals opinion holding, in the context of an appeal over the stay of a juvenile sex offender registration order, that the inability to change one’s name under state law does not implicate the freedom of expression.
Supreme Court of Alaska opinion holding that, for the purposes of interpreting the 1994 registration law, convictions that were set aside do not count for registration purposes.
Nevada Supreme Court opinion holding that the rights of an individual who was required to register were not violated when a state trial court refused to grant his petition to terminate his registration status.
Opinion from the Eastern District of New York holding that being subject to New York’s SORA does not satisfy the “in custody” requirement for filing a habeas corpus petition.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion vacating conditions of supervised release banning individual from the internet, and from possessing legal pornography.
California Supreme Court Opinion holding that a voter-passed constitutional amendment expanding parole eligibility to individuals convicted of non-violent felonies included non-violent sex offenses or people otherwise required to register.
Washington Supreme Court opinion holding that the requirement that anyone required to register as a sex offender in another jurisdiction was also required to register in Washington State was not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.
Kansas Court of Appeals opinion holding that violations of the Kansas Offender Registration Act are strict liability and do not violate substantive due process.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals case reversing the dismissal of various constitutional claims related to Idaho’s SORNA, including Ex Post Facto, Double Jeopardy, and Eighth Amendment.
Ohio Supreme Court opinion holding that a state law designating certain individuals as sexually violent predators, subjecting them to enhanced criminal sentencing, could not be applied retroactively.
11th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion holding that lifetime computer restrictions for an individual on supervised release did not violate the First Amendment.
New York Court of Appeals opinion holding that New York’s practice of imprisoning some individuals convicted of sex offenses past dates they would otherwise be released for want of legal housing was not unconstitutional.
Missouri Court of Appeals opinion affirming the decision of a lower court that a Missouri resident was ineligble to seek removal from Missouri’s sex offense registry despite his removal from Illinois’ sex offense registry.
Montana Supreme Court opinion reversing a trial court’s imposition of conditions of supervision restricting internet access, where the underlying offense had no nexus with the internet.